I shall vote for myself just to counter-balance Sect7G's self-vote

that's already in the bio (para 4) but thanks for the extra clarification.

I barely squeeked out 200kvpp's last year. And my stats would show that I can make more money as a Tourney player as opposed to cash so I don't see any bias from me. I'd like to see the cash games winrates more balanced over the various games and a overall reduced rake without any hidden loopholes like the 5 handed rake increase proposal.

As for the axe to grind would you care to elaborate?

No I'm inviting people to do their own research. If they dont care enough to do that then that's up to them.

It is a fact he is not a high volume regular at Stars and that matters to people even if for some of them its for the wrong reason.

Democracy is balanced

If you want people to do their own research, then please don't post blanket statements in bold font that you know incite only anger and hate. Let them research and make their own decisions. Likewise, post research, proof, fact, logical argument and help educate them.

This is not an anti-you stance on my part. Both of you should probably go, I'm not sure why we are having this poll unless Stars said 'its just one, you decide'

Hood has no real or perceived immediate vested interest in the outcome. Objectivity is not easy, only Hood comes at this from a non-stars player perspective. That combined with his credibility is unique amongst you all and shouldn't be wasted.

Voted for Hood. He is a much better candidate with a broader and unbiased perspective. I also know him to be a rational, smart, and clear-thinking guy and I'm confident he'd be a great addition to the group.

I'm glad this poll went ahead. I think Sect7G will make a good rep (and i nominated him I and voted for him in the previous threads), and I know the date issue is contentious. Whatever the result i think it will be a very strong panel going to IoM.

With that said, I'm confident I would be a very important addition to the discussions. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say I've was one of the most prolific writers and critics of both Pokerstars and the online poker industry last year. The website I founded has been outspoken on many player advocacy issues, and the site was the only one to cover topics like the SNG changes, the VPN lockdown and this rake change in detail (the latter of which we covered the announcement, the protest, and I wrote an opinion piece critiquing Stars).

Due to my full time engagement in the industry this year I have a broad knowledge on many topics that may come as an asset to the panel. As just one example, I'm fairly knowledgeable about the changing European market - in Belgium, Estonia, Denmark and the expectations in 2012 with Spain, Germany and the UK in 2012 - relevant topics that were referenced in Steve's last Q&A post. I have written and critiqued PartyPoker's switch to WC, and covered; we reported in depth on the Bodog changes, and the Everleaf player restrictions.

As a player, I am not personally vested in one game or one site. My main source of income is online poker, but not as a SNE or from rakeback from one site. I would go to the IoM meetings with an open mind, with the hopes to open up lines of communication with PokerStars and advocate for all professional poker players in promoting a game profitable at all stakes and enjoyable for all. If nominated, my plan is to meet up with players from under-represented games so I'm well versed across the board.

As a matter of full disclosure I am a friend of and business partner with Hood.

The dates only have significance if changes will not be made retroactively and even if not, the difference will be negligible for the vast majority.

I chose Hood because of his experience, intellect, impartiality, and business acumen.

I dont doubt your motives but somehow you have produced a poll that has managed to give the false impression that a) there is no other option and b) its a FL and date issue.

The bolded bit was just to get the attention of those who might have got the idea that unless they played FL this decision didn't matter to them.

I have no desire to raise anger and hate, I dont think I've done that. I might have shown a bit that democracy isn't beautiful but really did anyone think it was.

Steve can you tell us if you're okay with both going

clearly an easy and good solution, which would avoid acrimony and also appeal to some of the different groups of players that these two guys represent.

Voted for Hood as a known reliable person and someone who will understand the factors on display from all sides, especially thanks to his work at Pokerfuse.

I created this poll to accomplish something. I started organizing people and leading the discussions in the threads days ago and have been involved every waking hour since to accomplish something. I want to help fix online poker.

I do not know how I turned this into a FL issue. I never even mentioned it.

I believe the date of the meeting is important, so I included it.

I don't believe any of the candidates have more overall Limit Hold Em experience then Sect. He has been a very helpful person to the 2 + 2 community, and it would be well deserved. GL

I dont doubt your motives and I never said you turned it into a FL issue. Its just the way it appeared to me to be going so I, for the same motives as you - to help fix online poker - tried to get it back to what matters far more imo then an extra week here or there.

I'm going to hold off on deciding for now, but chezlaw sure makes things difficult to read.

Sect7G,

Are you willing to disclose the details surrounding the termination of your employment at PokerStars after only two months?

I resigned. I think that's safe to say. As for any other details of my NDA I obviously can't talk about it on a public forum or to anyone as this would be violating my agreement.

Hood.

I've met both Nick and Dan, and found each to be genuinely friendly, level-headed, and intelligent. There's no bad choice here.

I chose Hood for his broad knowledge of the industry. The fact that he runs an independent news site speaks to his objectivity, and that experience involves a lot of research and contemplation about the state and direction of poker.

I think Sect7G may have a tighter view on PokerStars (not a bad thing), while Hood has a broader view. It's easy to see these recent changes on Stars in a vacuum, and think only of what it means to our bottom lines. But they're also part of a disturbing trend among many sites. One we must curb. Viewing the larger picture may be key to getting that done.

Because if the meeting is one week earlier the decision will also likely be made bit earlier. As a lot of people complain how this new vpp model etc. destroy their livelyhood/won't make SNE etc it makes sense to have this resolved as soon as possible. It will also affect my plans for this year, albeit slightly.

What happens if they get equal votes?

The main purpose is to review rake structures. I am not seeing PS to apply rake structure changes retroactively...

Cage match, obv.

only if Elky's his coach

One other thing I'd like to point out is that this whole process is thoroughly inane. A popularity contest on 2p2 to decide who advises the #1 site on rake structure changes? Seriously? There needs to be a player advocacy group that addresses these non-legislative player concerns.